Apple and Samsung Fail to Reach Deal Over Patent Issues in Recent Mediation Meeting

Oh well. Off to court then.

- Reads title


- Isn't surprised

How is Koh still a Judge?
Only in the USA.

Woah! Move aside "The Young and the Restless"

RightMACatU said:

Woah! Move aside "The Young and the Restless"

Click to expand...

Next week on "As the Apple Turns: the Battle Against Samsung"...

Alternate solution to mediation:

After losing a BILLION dollar case, that Samsung says they have no intention on settling, seems strange. Talk about a distortion field.

MacRumors said:

Notably, Shin was quoted in November 2012 as saying that Samsung has "no such intention" in settling with Apple over patent issues, as HTC and Apple announced that they had reached a global settlement on their patent dispute earlier that month.

Click to expand...

Well, there's not much of an historical incentive:

• Nokia gets cross license to some of Apple's patents.
• HTC pays for license to all of Apple's patents.
• Samsung and Apple refuse to settle with each other.

Which companies are doing best?

Cuban Missles said:

After losing a BILLION dollar case, that Samsung says they have no intention on settling, seems strange. Talk about a distortion field.

Click to expand...

That is not guaranteed though... I believe judge also lowered 1B amount.

I do not know how much does Apple want loyalty from its patents, I am sure that Samsung might feel to expensive for them in long run. They might as well just pay the 1B or whatever it might be.

Since Samsung continues to be intransigent, take them back to court, bend them over and...well, you get the picture.

I really think that at this point, Samsung is just trying to save face. I believe that at this point, they think that if they settle, they'll be seen as having an even larger defeat - go figure - than losing in court. At least if they go to court, they have a CHANCE of getting away scot-free, though that appears highly unlikely.

Cuban Missles said:

After losing a BILLION dollar case, that Samsung says they have no intention on settling, seems strange. Talk about a distortion field.

Click to expand...

I'd bet that paying out court settlements is cheaper than paying patent royalties.

I imagine the conversation going like this:

Apple- we can forget the blatant iPhone copying if you promise not to copy our new products coming out this year.

Samsung- you know we can't make that promise.

Discussion over.

In other news...the sun rose in the East.

StrongArmmed said:

Since Samsung continues to be intransigent, take them back to court, bend them over and...well, you get the picture.

I really think that at this point, Samsung is just trying to save face. I believe that at this point, they think that if they settle, they'll be seen as having an even larger defeat - go figure - than losing in court. At least if they go to court, they have a CHANCE of getting away scot-free, though that appears highly unlikely.

Click to expand...

It is obviously Apple has win every case outside of USA...

Settling is for shameful weaklings. Samsung is the great warrior and will vanquish his foes with courage and ferocity....or pay out another billion or so.

Nanasaki said:

That is not guaranteed though... I believe judge also lowered 1B amount.

I do not know how much does Apple want loyalty from its patents, I am sure that Samsung might feel to expensive for them in long run. They might as well just pay the 1B or whatever it might be.

Click to expand...

I assume that the payout is for damages done. Wouldn't the court then still force Samsung to pay royalties for pattens that are upheld in the future? So instead of negotiating they are betting that the court will give them a better deal? That's what I mean -- I would prefer to negotiate and control the price versus having it set by someone else where I will probably pay more (given the track record they have in court).

----------

M-O said:

I'd bet that paying out court settlements is cheaper than paying patent royalties.

Click to expand...

As stated before, paying out, I think is for past infraction. Going forward they will likely still be forced to pay royalties if the court upholds the patents.

Samsung won't agree to the anti-cloning agreement, aka copying apple products

tbrand7 said:

Samsung won't agree to the anti-cloning agreement, aka copying apple products

Click to expand...

Samsung can't do that. Where else would they copy that next big idea?

I agree with Samsung. My Note 3 has nothing in common with the iPhone. It's why I went from a Note 2 to a iPhone 5s and back to the Note 3. I started having the shakes and blurred vision with the 5s. Doctor told me that small screens will do that.

Will do good said:

Samsung can't do that. Where else would they copy that next big idea?

Click to expand...

That would be like shutting down your R&D department... it's just crazy!

the8thark said:

How is Koh still a Judge?
Only in the USA.

Click to expand...

She's not the best, but she has a better understanding of intellectual property law than Alsup does. Alsup is a brilliant guy, but his ruling in the Oracle v Google case regarding copyright of API's was flat-out wrong.

As a software developer, I can tell you that developing an API is not just about naming functions and parameters. You have to come up with complex object hierarchies that keep implementation private while exposing functionality. This means having to spend most of the time designing class hierarchies of objects as well as functions that take those objects and what kinds of types are returned. Often the actual implementation is the part that is not worth protecting because the implementation is trivial.

Case-and-point.... BSD sockets have been able to do multiplexing for decades. It is a well known technique by which you can do a non-busy wait for data on multiple sockets on a single thread and then get a wakeup to process the data when data arrives on one or more of those sockets. The first design of java.io failed to take this into account and required that those waiting for data on multiple sockets do a busy wait with polling or use one thread per socket which is not feasible in the case where you have over 50 sockets with which you are communicating (i.e.: it would require 50 threads). Java redesigned the API in Java 1.4 with a great new API called java.nio. The new API has a great object hierarchy and better return values and parameters which allows Java to expose multiplexing within the virtual machine. The implementation was trivial, but the API is what required some rethinking because the old BSD API's were not at all object oriented and the Java architects came up with something that was.

For Google to be allowed to copy this wholesale (class names, function names, parameter names, return types, class/interface hierarchy) without penalty is ridiculous. It shows that Alsup has little understanding of where the intellectual investment goes in software even though he says he learned to program in Java to prepare himself for this case.

Protecting the implementation of something with copyright is kinda dumb. The only implementations worth protecting can already be protected with patents. Copyright is the correct mechanism to protect an API from wholesale copying. It would mean that Google would have at least had to change the names or some part of what they did. They wouldn't be barred completely from using Oracle's ideas, but they could not wholesale copy it. Much like a songwriter can come up with a tune that is similar but not identical to another. Wholesale copying of an API should be a violation of copyright law and I am hoping Alsup's ruling gets overturned through appeal sooner rather than later.

At the very least, Google should have had to change class names and function names even if they were allowed to copy the object inheritance (though I think they should have to at least differ by some percentage there as well).

UPDATE: Replaced "Posner" with "Alsup" above. Thanks to kdarling for spotting my brain fart.

Will do good said:

Samsung can't do that. Where else would they copy that next big idea?

Click to expand...

Can you tell me what did Samsung copied for their Galaxy S4 and Note 3?

Seems to me that you think everything Samsung ever created were copied from Apple...

BC2009 said:

As a software developer,

Click to expand...

You being a software developer makes you more qualified to interpret the law than a Judge?

SakuraSuki said:

Can you tell me what did Samsung copied for their Galaxy S4 and Note 3?

Seems to me that you think everything Samsung ever created were copied from Apple...

Click to expand...

You mean after Apple have established the smart phone and tablet for the industry, than they innovate from there. Than you are correct.